CESAR ORTEGA
v.
GRISELL VERANIA SOTOLONGO
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A trial court's decision to uphold an antenuptial agreement must be supported by competent, substantial evidence, and the trial court's interpretation of the agreement is reviewed de novo.
[1] An antenuptial agreement must be supported by competent, substantial evidence, and the trial court's interpretation of such an agreement is reviewed de novo; courts must…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCesar Ortega appealed a non-final order from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County regarding an antenuptial agreement with Grisell Verania Sotolongo…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Prenuptial Agreement Interpretation cases and more on FLexlaw
Third District Court of Appeal
State of Florida
Opinion filed November 5, 2026.
Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
No. 3D25-2366
Lower Tribunal No. 23-4226-FC-04
Cesar Ortega, Appellant,
vs.
Grisell Verania Sotolongo, Appellee.
An Appeal from a non-final order from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Angélica D. Zayas, Judge.
Schwartz Sladkus Reich Greenberg Atlas LLP, and Robin Bresky, and Jonathan Mann (Boca Raton), for appellant.
Kevin Coyle Colbert, for appellee.
Before FERNANDEZ, GOODEN and REBULL, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. See Hahamovitch v. Hahamovitch, 133 So. 3d 1008, 1010, 1012 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014), approved, 174 So. 3d 983 (Fla. 2015) (“A trial court's decision to uphold an antenuptial agreement must be supported by competent, substantial evidence. . . . [the] trial court's interpretation of a prenuptial agreement [however] is reviewed de novo.”); Crupi v. Crupi, 784 So. 2d 611, 612 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001) (“There are two separate grounds for invalidating pre/post-nuptial agreements. The first deals with fraud, duress, coercion, misrepresentation or overreaching. The second is unfairness.” (citation modified)); Belcher v. Belcher, 271 So. 2d 7, 9 (Fla. 1972) (“[T]here is a vast difference between a contract made in the market place and one relating to the institution of marriage."); see generally Hjortaas v. McCabe, 656 So. 2d 168, 170-71 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995) (a lump sum payment and some knowledge of the defending spouse's wealth, without the "financial sophistication” to understand that wealth, is not enough to survive a challenge to the prenuptial agreement); Baker v. Baker, 394 So. 2d 465, 468 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981) (The "fact that [the challenging spouse] was unrepresented by counsel, only underscores the necessity for full compliance with the fiduciary responsibilities inherent in the marital relationship.").
2
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Annabelle G. Belcher v. Belcher, 271 So. 2d 7 (Fla. 1972)
- Baker v. Baker, 394 So. 2d 465 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)
- Hahamovitch v. Hahamovitch, 174 So. 3d 983 (Fla. 2015)
- Crupi v. Crupi, 784 So. 2d 611 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)
- Hahamovitch v. Hahamovitch, 133 So. 3d 1008 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014)
- Hjortaas v. McCABE, 656 So. 2d 168 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)